AVATAR land coming to Disney's Animal Kingdom

[S.E.A.]

My point was actually that Pandora (the new land) could be very much like Asia (lush, jungles, animals, etc).

These conversations are circular. A couple hundred posts ago, someone mentioned that AK already has its own dose of sci-fi (time travel). If you can travel to the past at AK, why not the future?

then what point is there to Pandora if it's just gonna be like Asia?

Also, in AK you travel to the past in one ride, not a whole land.

 

[S.E.A.]

Star Tours, Indiana Jones Adventure, Tower of Terror, etc - Disney can do great things with a large sum of money and someone else's idea.

Individual rides, not whole lands. Also, the question is not whether they can make something good out of it, it's about whether it fits in DAK or not.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

Individual rides, not whole lands.

People have been salivating for a lucasland or muppet land. This will be Disney's chance to execute a non-Disney property land on a larger scale.

If Cars can get an enormous big-budget land, then I can only imagine what they'll do with Avatar.

 

[S.E.A.]

People have been salivating for a lucasland or muppet land. This will be Disney's chance to execute a non-Disney property land on a larger scale.

If Cars can get an enormous big-budget land, then I can only imagine what they'll do with Avatar.

they can, and I'm sure it's gonna be incredible being such a high profile project I just don't believe it fits in with Animal Kingdom as a whole.

 

[JustInTime]

they can, and I'm sure it's gonna be incredible being such a high profile project I just don't believe it fits in with Animal Kingdom as a whole.

You have said this about 30 times. Why the back and forth? Lets move on. Attraction speculation, anyone? :zipit:

 

[Crockett]

Beastly Kingdom was based in our cultural myths and creations that we, as humans, have created over millenia. This continues the very reality based themeing that the majority of the park maintains. Pandora is a crazy planet that has a stupid-sounding mineral where people bone with their hair.
The two are not even in the same ballpark as far as ethos, aesthetics, importance, the list goes on.

Okay man, we get it, you are not pleased with the Avatar decision. So go build your own mega theme park and create it with lands & attractions to your liking. Nobody here is standing in your way.

God speed.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

they can, and I'm sure it's gonna be incredible being such a high profile project I just don't believe it fits in with Animal Kingdom as a whole.

It's not a perfect fit, but it's a fit that I can live with. You don't feel the same way. Neither one of us will be able to prove otherwise.

And for the record, I'm not just someone who thinks every decision or forced fit is okay. Here are some changes that I don't like: place the garish sorcerer's hat in 1940s Hollywood, cartoon-ify Tomorrowland, add Agrabah to Adventureland, Toy Story Mania in DisneySea, etc.

In this case, I'm okay with it for now, and I expect a high quality attraction to come out of this, which is what I care most about. :sohappy:

 

[S.E.A.]

You have said this about 30 times. Why the back and forth? Lets move on. Attraction speculation, anyone? :zipit:

I've been making attraction speculation too, I also keep bringing it up because people seem to keep questioning Avatar's feasibility as a theme park property when that really isn't in question.

 

[cheezbat]

Ok...I didn't really like the movie at all. Not super thrilled that this is DAK's next big thing, but I am excited that Disney is actually spending millions to put SOMETHING into that park.
Now that all being said, I do think the land will be visually pretty cool. I'm interested to see what they'll do ride/shop/restaurant wise in the area.

What's really bothering me with this whole thing though...if we aren't seeing this completed until 2016-17, is something smaller going to be greenlit and built in the next couple of years? Animal Kingdom needs something NOW. Not five plus years down the road. The park is gonna take a hit before the opening of the Avland if that's the case.

Oh...and yes the theme park wars are back in full swing! All I can say is thank you Universal for forcing Disney to step up! What's more exciting is that you guys know Universal isn't going to sit this one out...more announcements for their parks are probably a short way around the corner... :wave: More wins for us theme park lovers!!!

 

[Crazy Harry]

You're right. Unicorns may have existed, so they make sense (as originally planned in Beastly Kingdom). We all know that unicorns aren't real, but they are real enough because in our fantasies they live on earth.


So should the park be renamed "Disney's Earth Animal Kingdom"? Or what about "Disney's Animal Planet"? Would that get the message across? Again, just because fictional non-earth based animals weren't in the park, doesn't mean they can't be added. Before the yeti, no fictional animals existed in the park, so precedent would have dictated to leave out the yeti. If dinoland hadn't been around on opening day but was instead added later, then the park would have been all "living" animals until that point. Doesn't mean dinosaurs aren't allowed in the park. Eisner's dedication never limited the discussion of animals to earth, he said real, ancient, and imagined (basically anything goes). Maybe the "earth" aspect as assumed or implicit, but at this point it just represents a limit in creativity.


We don't have a say in the matter, so Disney doesn't care what we want or how we would expand the parks. But I'm perfectly willing to embrace this change since it makes sense to me from a conceptual standpoint. Plus, I expect the end product to be immersive and include a great theme park attraction.

I bet the people complaining about Avatar are the same people still angry that Soarin' is in The Land at Epcot. It might not be the best fit, but Epcot is certainly more enjoyable to a lot of people now that Soarin' is in the park.

But even with unicorns there is some basis in reality, because there are horses and there are animals with horns (some not that unlike a unicorn). Regardless, that is a mute point because it was never built. So much for reality...

Again, please educate yourself, yetis are not fake. New species are discovered all the time, that does not make them 'fake' before they are discovered. Yetis are known around the world in various forms i.e. yeti, abominable snowman, sascwatch (sp), and bigfoot. This is likely more than just a coincidence, especially with all of the primates and human/primate hybrids that have existed. And the whole basis of the attraction is to discover the validity of the yeti’s existence, essentially a zoological quest.

And when we are talking the culture of other people as it pertains to animals, comparing it to Avatar in terms of legitimacy is insulting. There is a difference between mythology and sci-fi.

Living or dead Dinosaurs are animals, as in Animal Kingdom. They are animals, once living, of the earth.

Being loosey goosey with a theme is not using imagination, in fact it is lacking imagination. If you need a popular sci-fi movie to populate a park pertaining to animals of the Earth as defined by not only the initial content as well as the current content and the name of the park itself, with the whole of the earth's animals and related mythology as your topic, then that is lacking imagination. Let's then add a jupiter pavillion to world showcase. After all we are lacking imagination if we don't. Why do all of the pavillions have to be about countries of Earth, and it is a world.

All of animal kingdom takes place on earth. By adding Pandora, we are adding a world not of this earth unlike the rest of the park, and the implication of space travel which obviously has no place in AK.

 

[JustInTime]

I've been making attraction speculation too, I also keep bringing it up because people seem to keep questioning Avatar's feasibility as a theme park property when that really isn't in question.

I said this when the thread was booming but it got overlooked... Since one of the upcoming films takes place in the ocean, this opens up aquatic life to animal kingdom. It would be awesome to get a, world of color style show too.

 

[bferrara16]

To all those people equating the box office with popularity, like this...

2.7 BILLION DOLLARS (thats billion...... with a B)

I have this to say...

Australia's 2009 GNP: 842 BILLION DOLLARS, with a B.

Boom.

Give me Australia instead.

 

[S.E.A.]

I said this when the thread was booming but it got overlooked... Since one of the upcoming films takes place in the ocean, this opens up aquatic life to animal kingdom. It would be awesome to get a, world of color style show too.

but then that would have to focus on alien lifeforms rather than the actual aquatic life we know.

Aquatic life is already opened up in animal kingdom, just not developed. Why else is the Nemo show there?

 

[Captain Neo]

Wait there are people here who seriously want more pixar crap in the parks over THIS???

y'all are nuts

 

[JustInTime]

but then that would have to focus on alien lifeforms rather than the actual aquatic life we know.

Aquatic life is already opened up in animal kingdom, just not developed. Why else is the Nemo show there?

There you go again. I'm putting you on ignore because its late and not worth my time.

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

But even with unicorns there is some basis in reality, because there are horses and there are animals with horns (some not that unlike a unicorn). Regardless, that is a mute point because it was never built. So much for reality...

Again, please educate yourself, yetis are not fake. New species are discovered all the time, that does not make them 'fake' before they are discovered. Yetis are known around the world in various forms i.e. yeti, abominable snowman, sascwatch (sp), and bigfoot. This is likely more than just a coincidence, especially with all of the primates and human/primate hybrids that have existed. And the whole basis of the attraction is to discover the validity of the yeti’s existence, essentially a zoological quest.

And when we are talking the culture of other people as it pertains to animals, comparing it to Avatar in terms of legitimacy is insulting. There is a difference between mythology and sci-fi.

Living or dead Dinosaurs are animals. They are animals, once living, of the earth.

Being loosey goosey with a theme is not using imagination, in fact it is lacking imagination. If you need a popular sci-fi movie to populate a park pertaining to animals of the Earth as defined by not only the initial content as well as the current content and the name of the park itself, with the whole of the earth's animals and related mythology as your topic, then that is lacking imagination. Let's then add a jupiter pavillion to world showcase. After all we are lacking imagination if we don't. Why do all of the pavillions have to be about countries of Earth, and it is a world.

All of animal kingdom takes place on earth. By adding Pandora, we are adding a world not of this earth unlike the rest of the park, and the implication of space travel which obviously has no place in AK.

Honestly, I'm sure Disney has considered "Australia" or "South America" several times. Where's the creativity in that? Following the precedent of continent-themed lands. They would undoubtedly have an exploration trail/trek featuring animals native to that continent, and likely one D-ticket that's slightly exciting but still enjoyable for young kids. Honestly, I think we have a rough idea of what we would get in another continent land.

This was unexpected, and it's a name that will attract attention.

Also: dragons exist in mythology from various places (Europe, China, etc). I don't think I'm being insulting in saying that I don't think dragons are real. As of right now, they're imaginary. Yet they're welcome in AK if Beastly Kingdom were to be built (not happening, I know), just like the animals of Avatar IMO (sci-fi is simply a branch of "imaginary").

Finally, PS: I would have preferred Australia or South America. I really would have. For years, I've wanted to see Australia added to AK (with a focus on the outback, marsupials, or great barrier reef) or World Showcase (with some of the natural focus, but also on Australia's urban areas like Sydney). But I don't really feel any need to complain about this announcement. I'm excited for the end result, and I think it'll fit fine enough (Disney has forced a lot of other attractions that I think are worse fits for their respective locations).).

 

[DonaldDoleWhip]

Wait there are people here who seriously want more pixar crap in the parks over THIS???

y'all are nuts

So true

"Come on, I want more Cars 2 attractions. At least Cars 2 is a Disney product. I mean, a whole land based on a James Cameron film? What's next, Lucasland?! Disney has no more creativity :fork:"

 

[Crazy Harry]

World Showcase is clearly a different entity. To be a pavilion in World Showcase, you need to represent a nation (or perhaps a collection of nations, as Equatorial Africa was once considered). Still, the foundation of World Showcase is non-fiction and the parameters for entry are well-defined. That's never been a boundary for AK, where you can time travel to see living dinosaurs, shrink to the size of a bug, go camping with cartoon rodents, and face a yeti.

Perhaps if every land in AK had a direct theme that all tied together (Africa, Asia, North America, South America, Australia, etc), then Pandora would clearly be illogical. But with Dinoland and Camp Minnie Mickey in the mix, AK isn't limited in the same way as World Showcase.

Maybe it should be called Nations of the World Showcase. Why are there so many implied themes here and not AK. How do you see the two as different. World showcase has time travel (American Adventure), talking ducks, and trolls. There are only set peramiters here and not AK because of your own perception. The peramiters for both are identical. How is adding a different planet to World showcase different than adding Pandora to AK. Isn't this using imagination and setting prescidence?

After all, the name World Showcase no more sets peramiters by name than Animal Kingdom by your definition. If we use your arguement, what part of World Showcase implies nation of Earth? In fact, it is both in name and in content.

And I ask, camp minnie mickey and Dinoland don't take place on earth?

 

[WDWGoof07]

Wait there are people here who seriously want more pixar crap in the parks over THIS???

y'all are nuts

Absolutely yes. Cars Land would be awesome in DHS (I maintain that Avatar-land would work better there, too). The Incredibles, Up, and Ratatouille still are not represented in the WDW parks, all of which have great theme park potential. And while we're on the subject of Animal Kingdom, Up would be a great addition to that park.

Pixar = Disney :wave:

 

[S.E.A.]

Honestly, I'm sure Disney has considered "Australia" or "South America" several times. Where's the creativity in that? Following the precedent of continent-themed lands. They would undoubtedly have an exploration trail/trek featuring animals native to that continent, and likely one D-ticket that's slightly exciting but still enjoyable for young kids. Honestly, I think we have a rough idea of what we would get in another continent land.

WOW you're saying that coming up with an original property based on the cultures of Australia or the Americas is not creative!? And working with a director on his own property is? Just WOW.:hammer: